Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T20:53:53.689Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Quantum Logic and the Invariance Argument—A Reply to Bell and Hallett

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Margaret Morrison
Margaret Morrison*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, University of Western Ontario
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The aim of this paper is to show that the argument put forth by Bell and Hallett against Putnam's thesis regarding the invariance of meaning for quantum logical connectives is insufficient to establish their conclusion. By using an example from the causal theory of time, the paper shows how the condition they specify as relevant in cases of meaning variance in fact fails. As a result, the conclusion that negation undergoes a change of meaning in the quantum logical case is left in doubt. The paper proceeds in three stages. First, a summary of Putnam's argument for the invariance of meaning in the case of quantum logical connectives is provided; this is followed by a review of the criticisms advanced against it by Bell and Hallett. Finally, it is shown how the main claim upon which their major criticism rests is unfounded.

Type
Discussion
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 53 , Issue 3 , September 1986 , pp. 403 - 411
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association 1986

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

†

I would like to thank William Demopoulos for drawing my attention to the point that constitutes the central argument of this paper as well as for many helpful discussions of the issues dealt with. I would also like to thank Michael Friedman for several valuable suggestions. Support of research by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada is gratefully acknowledged.

References

Bell, J., and Hallett, M. (1982), “Logic, Quantum Logic and Empiricism”, in Philosophy of Science 49: 355–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, M. (1983), Foundations of Space-Time Theories. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Holland, S. S. Jr. (1970), “The Current Interest in Orthomodular Lattices”, in Trends in Lattice Theory, Abbot, J. C. (ed.). New York: van Nostrand.Google Scholar
Malament, David (1977), “Causal Theories of Time and the Conventionality of Simultaneity”, Noûs 11: 293–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putman, H. (1975), “The Logic of Quantum Mechanics”, in Philosophical Papers. Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Reichenbach, Hans (1958), The Philosophy of Space and Time. New York: Dover Publications.Google Scholar
Robb, A. A. (1914), A Theory of Space and Time. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Winnie, John (1977), “The Causal Theory of Space-Time”, in Foundations of Space-Time Theories, Earman, J., Glymour, C., and Stachel, E.-W. (eds.). Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 8. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar